ALAYA LEGAL BULLETIN
Arbitration and Litigation
The date of receipt of the corrected award will be the disposal date under Section 34(3) (Application for setting aside arbitral award) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’), even when application under Section 33 (Correction and interpretation of award; additional award) has been filed.
The Delhi High Court (‘Court’) disposed of the petition and held that the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 34 is hit by limitation.
The Court held that the date of receipt of the corrected award even in cases where an application under Section 33 has been filed will be taken as the starting point of the time period under Section 34 of the 1996 Act and not the date of the disposal as it would go contrary to the plain reading of Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act.?
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India calls for uniformity in limitation periods across statutes, allowing greater flexibility to courts for condoning delays.
The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (‘Court’) was whether or not the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’)? apply to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘1996 Act’).?
The Court held that section 3 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the 1996 Act as the 3-month limitation period is the period prescribed in the schedule of the Limitation Act. Further, sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply to determine whether the application is within the period of limitation, “insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded.”
Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) does not mean different causes of action from the same transaction must be included in a single suit.
The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (‘Court’) was whether or not the principles enumerated under Order II Rule 2 CPC would bar the institution of a second suit and warrant rejection of the plaint filed by the Respondent.
The Court observed that the mandate of Order II Rule 2 is the inclusion of the whole claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in one suit. It must not be
misunderstood to mean that all the different causes of action arising from the same transaction must be included in a single suit.
The Court held that the bar under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC would not stand in the way of the institution of the second suit by the Respondent. In view of the above, the appeals were dismissed.
Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) | High Courts cannot pass an interim order in a second appeal without framing a substantial question of law.
The issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (‘Court’) was whether or not the High Court can pass any ad interim order for a limited period, before framing substantial question(s) of law, while dealing with a second appeal filed under Order XLI r/w Section 100, CPC.
The Court set aside the interim order passed by the High Court and held that, the High Court has jurisdiction to pass an interim order ex parte, however, it does not empower to grant ad-interim relief, without examining the parties and formulating the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal as it is contrary to Section 100, CPC.
The Court observed that the High Court acquires jurisdiction to deal with the second appeal on merits only when it frames a substantial question of law as required to be framed under Section 100, CPC; and it cannot grant an interim order, without framing a substantial question of law.
Courts designated as Additional Rent Control Tribunals for Delhi
The Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in consultation with the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi has designated the Courts of District Judge-01 and District Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as Additional Rent Control Tribunals for dealing with appeals under Section 38 (Appeal to the Tribunal) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, pertaining to the Central District (Judicial) of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Corporate and Commercial
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) rules that Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (‘EPFO’) can begin assessment proceedings after liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’).
The issue before NCLAT was whether, after the imposition of moratorium under Section 14 (Moratorium) of the IBC, assessment proceedings can be carried on by the EPFO under Sections 7A (Determination of moneys due from employers), 14B (Power to recover damages), and 7Q (Interest payable by the employer) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
NCLAT held that the bar is only against suit or legal proceeding and there is no bar against assessment proceedings to be conducted by statutory Authorities, including the EPFO. Thus, after the liquidation, it is open for EPFO to carry on the assessment. Section 33(5) of the IBC, cannot be held to apply on assessment proceedings. However, while looking to the expression used in Section 14(1) of the IBC, assessment proceedings before the EPFO, cannot be continued after initiation of CIRP.?
Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 | Partner of an unregistered firm cannot file a suit for recovery against other partners
In the present matter, the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (‘Court’) was whether or not a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a suit for recovery of money against the other partner.?
The Court observed that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 (Effect of Non-Registration) of the Partnership Act, 1932 assumes a mandatory character. It prohibits a suit amongst the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, unless the suit amongst the partners is in the nature of dissolution of the partnership firm and/or rendition of accounts.
The Court dismissed the petition stating that the Section 69 of the Act would apply on such a suit and the partnership firm being unregistered would prevent the petitioners from filing a bare suit for recovery of money from the respondent.
Mandatory use of eBKray auction platform for liquidation processes
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’), via a circular dated October 29 2024,? has issued directions regarding the use of the eBKray auction platform.
In this regard, all Insolvency Professionals (IPs) handling liquidation processes are directed to exclusively use the eBKray auction platform for conducting auctions for the sale of assets during the liquidation process with effect from April 1, 2025.
It is further directed that the listing of unsold assets in all ongoing liquidation cases shall be completed by March 31, 2025. These directions are issued under Section 196 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025.
The Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations, 2025, amended the Foreign Exchange Management (Deposit) Regulations, 2016 under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.
Key changes include:
The Foreign Exchange Management (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non-Debt Instruments) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025.
The Foreign Exchange Management (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non-Debt Instruments) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025, issued under Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, amended the Foreign Exchange Management (Mode of Payment and Reporting of Non-Debt Instruments) Regulations, 2019.
Key updates include the following revised provisions:?
Energy and Sustainability
领英推荐
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘CERC’) eases regulatory requirements for a wind project in Tamil Nadu.
The CERC issued an order against a petition filed by Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited (‘TPREL’) and others.
The petitioners sought relief from certain conditions (including timelines) stipulated in Regulation 11A(2) (Conditions subsequent to be satisfied by the Connectivity Grantee) and 11B of the CERC (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 (‘GNA Regulations’) for documents demonstrating financial closure with respect to the 198 MW wind capacity project at Tamil Nadu.
TPREL submitted that it was unclear on the requirement and timeline for the submission of the documents pertaining to the Financial Closure.
TPREL believed that in terms of the First Amendment it was obligated to achieve Financial Closure within 12 months from 15.05.2024 (date of final grant of Connectivity), i.e., by 14.05.2025, and submit documents substantiating the same within a further period of 15 days, whereas, by virtue of the Second Amendment, it would become obligated to achieve Financial Closure 6 months prior to the start date of connectivity, i.e., by December 01, 2024.
CERC acknowledged TPREL’s submissions that it has booked 90% of the CAPEX, and all 198 MW of Wind Turbine Generators have been erected and are nearing completion. Considering the substantive steps taken towards implementation of the project and the project being nearer to completion, CERC found that the present matter be considered for relaxation under Regulation 41 (Power to Relax) of the GNA Regulations.?
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘CERC’) grants compensation for Goods and Services Tax (‘GST’) hike impact on 350 MW Solar Power Project under ‘Change In Law’ provision.
A petition was filed under section 79(1)(b) & (f) (Functions of Central Commission) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Chapter IV of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2023.
The Petitioner sought an appropriate adjustment/compensation to offset the financial/commercial impact of Change in Law events on account of an increase in the rate of goods and services tax from 5% to 12%/18% by way of a Notification as a Change in Law event.
CERC held that the increase in the rate of GST, pursuant to the Notification dated 30.09.2021, would qualify as a Change in Law event in terms of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) entered between the parties and the Petitioner is entitled to receive compensation on the account of such Change in Law as per the terms of Article 17 of the PPA due to the impugned Notification dated 30.09.2021.
Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘APERC’) introduces a draft third amendment to APERC (Security Deposit) Regulations, 2004 (‘Regulation’) for small prepaid meters in Andhra Pradesh.
The amendment reflects the changes brought about by the bifurcation of the undivided Andhra Pradesh state and the subsequent formation of the new APERC for the residual state of Andhra Pradesh, effective from August 1, 2014.
The amendment comes as a response to the Central Electricity Authority (‘CEA’) regulations and the Ministry of Power’s (MOP) directives regarding the installation and operation of Smart Meters.
The CEA introduced changes to its 2006 regulations, which mandate that all new consumer meters must be Smart Meters with prepayment capabilities. The Regulations also require that existing meters be replaced with smart meters by a specified deadline.
In 2022, the CEA updated these Regulations, further clarifying that in areas with a communication network, Smart Meters must be used, and where no communication network is available, installation of prepayment meters conforming to Indian Standards will be allowed.
Draft Karnataka State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Open Access) Regulations, 2025.
The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘KERC’), under the Electricity Act, 2003, proposes the Draft Open Access Regulations, 2025, repealing the 2004 Regulations.
The proposed draft Regulations are applicable to all Open Access customers including Green Energy Open Access customers who have filed applications before the State Nodal agency from 13.01.2023 in case of STOA (Short Term Open Access) and from 02.01.2023 in case of LTOA (Long Term Open Access) & MTOA (Medium Term Open Access) for use of Intra State Transmission System/s (InSTS) and/or distribution system/s of licensee/s in the State, including such Intra-State Transmission and/or distribution system/s, which are incidental to Inter-State Transmission of electricity.
Draft Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2025
Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘KERC’) has proposed the draft Regulations to establish Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums (‘CGRFs’) in every Revenue District of their jurisdiction in order to facilitate the consumers mitigating their grievances.
Key provisions under these Regulations propose?
Draft Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) Deviation Settlement Mechanism and Related Matter Regulations, 2025.
HERC invites comments/objections from stakeholders and general public for finalization of the draft Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) Deviation Settlement Mechanism and Related Matter Regulations, 2025.
HERC aims to align these Regulations with the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Deviation Settlement Mechanism Regulations, 2022.
HERC via these Regulations aims at enhancing grid discipline by regulating electricity drawal and and injection in the State through a mechanism, applying to all electricity transaction via intra-state transmission and distribution system.
These Regulations will impact open access generators, captive generators, and those with generating capacities of above 10 MW.
Draft? Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Karnataka Electricity Distribution Code) Regulations, 2024.
By exercising the powers conferred under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003, the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) has notified the KERC (Karnataka Electricity Distribution Code) Regulations, 2024 to enforce standards with respect to quality, continuity and reliability of service by Distribution licensees.?
The draft Regulations provide detailed provisions with respect to distribution systems, which includes guidelines for planning, operations, maintenance, and safety standards for distribution licensees in the state of Karnataka.?
The Regulations introduced various technical terms relevant to the distribution system, such as ‘Distribution Licensee’, ‘Connected Load’, ‘Consumer’ etc.
Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting amended the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994
The Ministry of Information and Technology and Broadcasting issued a notification dated January 17, 2025 amending the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 (‘Rules’) to streamline the Local Cable Operator (‘LCO’) registration process.
Effective from the date of the notification, LCO registrations will be conducted entirely online with the Ministry itself as their registering authority.
Upon successful verification of applicant details, including Aadhaar, PAN, CIN, DIN etc., LCO registration certificates will be issued in real-time.
Also, a provision for appeal against the denial of registration or renewal for LCO registration has been introduced.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (‘TRAI’) proposed recommendations on the regulatory framework for ground-based broadcasters.
Salient points of the recommendations are given below:
If you have any questions regarding any of these developments or would like to reach out to our team for tailored solutions aligned with your vision and growth objectives, contact us today by filling our form: https://alayalegal.com/contact-us/.
Disclaimer: The content provided in this newsletter is intended only for the purposes of general awareness and should not be considered as legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional in relation to any specific issues that are mentioned herein.